John
D’Agata’s About A Mountain was a very
interesting read for me. Throughout the entire book I was “hooked” and had the
feeling that I just wanted to keep reading to find out what was going to
happen. I enjoyed the book. However, once I got to class and found out about
some of D’Agata’s questionable facts, I found myself sincerely questioning
everything that I had read.
The style D’Agata used was very casual, lyrical, and choppy. He often jumped from one thought to the next. For example on page 145-146, D’Agata begins talking about Ron Flud and how he hadn’t explained how Levi’s sneakers got knocked off his feet during the fall; “…were knocked off at the moment his body hit the ground, even though his sneakers looked unscuffed in the photo, unstained, still laced, even double- knotted. I suppose Ron knew that there are facts that do not matter,” and then abruptly begins recalling his trip with the students to Yucca Mountain, “Okay, kids,” Blair said, when our bus came to a stop. “I want you to show your school identifications to the soldier.” This shift had me wondering what was going on for a second since I had forgotten who Blair was. I happened to like this style of writing though. It helped keep me focused on the content of the book and made for an exciting read.
Another aspect of D’Agata’s style that was very prominent throughout the piece was his use of long lists. This can be seen especially on page 125 when D’Agata lists the 200 words the linguist Swadesh came up with to trace the roots of languages; “all, animal, ashes, back, bark, belly, berry, big, bird, bite, blood, bone, breast, brother , burn, child…” These lists, for me, helped to solidify some topics that D’Agata wanted to get across, such as the absurdity of some ideas or facts, and the vast extensiveness of some topics.
D’Agata seems to keep his own personal opinions and beliefs out of his writing. Instead he writes as if he is a journalist just presenting the facts in an objective and unbiased manner. This way of writing made me inherently trust what D’Agata was writing; even though I had no clue about any of the real facts. Learning that the author altered some facts, such as the day that Levi had committed suicide, the number of strip clubs in Vegas, how he had melded some characters and days together into one made me wonder about all the other “facts” that were presented. This revelation forces me to question whether a piece can remain nonfiction even though some facts are changed (no matter how minutely). Furthermore, it makes me wonder what the genre of nonfiction really is. Is it still nonfiction if some of the facts are altered?
There were many themes running through this book such as the escalation of events, risk taking, and the questioning of reality. D’Agata though doesn’t say any of these explicitly though; instead of skirts around them by talking about other topics like Yucca Mountain and suicide. I thought this was a very neat way to write, especially since I am used to stating what I want the reader to upfront.
Reading this book introduced me to a style that I would like to try incorporating into my own writing. The lyric style seems like it would be difficult to get the hang of, but I really liked the way D’Agata used it in About A Mountain. I hope to be able to work more with it in the future to make my writing have better flow and emphasis on my internal thoughts.
The style D’Agata used was very casual, lyrical, and choppy. He often jumped from one thought to the next. For example on page 145-146, D’Agata begins talking about Ron Flud and how he hadn’t explained how Levi’s sneakers got knocked off his feet during the fall; “…were knocked off at the moment his body hit the ground, even though his sneakers looked unscuffed in the photo, unstained, still laced, even double- knotted. I suppose Ron knew that there are facts that do not matter,” and then abruptly begins recalling his trip with the students to Yucca Mountain, “Okay, kids,” Blair said, when our bus came to a stop. “I want you to show your school identifications to the soldier.” This shift had me wondering what was going on for a second since I had forgotten who Blair was. I happened to like this style of writing though. It helped keep me focused on the content of the book and made for an exciting read.
Another aspect of D’Agata’s style that was very prominent throughout the piece was his use of long lists. This can be seen especially on page 125 when D’Agata lists the 200 words the linguist Swadesh came up with to trace the roots of languages; “all, animal, ashes, back, bark, belly, berry, big, bird, bite, blood, bone, breast, brother , burn, child…” These lists, for me, helped to solidify some topics that D’Agata wanted to get across, such as the absurdity of some ideas or facts, and the vast extensiveness of some topics.
D’Agata seems to keep his own personal opinions and beliefs out of his writing. Instead he writes as if he is a journalist just presenting the facts in an objective and unbiased manner. This way of writing made me inherently trust what D’Agata was writing; even though I had no clue about any of the real facts. Learning that the author altered some facts, such as the day that Levi had committed suicide, the number of strip clubs in Vegas, how he had melded some characters and days together into one made me wonder about all the other “facts” that were presented. This revelation forces me to question whether a piece can remain nonfiction even though some facts are changed (no matter how minutely). Furthermore, it makes me wonder what the genre of nonfiction really is. Is it still nonfiction if some of the facts are altered?
There were many themes running through this book such as the escalation of events, risk taking, and the questioning of reality. D’Agata though doesn’t say any of these explicitly though; instead of skirts around them by talking about other topics like Yucca Mountain and suicide. I thought this was a very neat way to write, especially since I am used to stating what I want the reader to upfront.
Reading this book introduced me to a style that I would like to try incorporating into my own writing. The lyric style seems like it would be difficult to get the hang of, but I really liked the way D’Agata used it in About A Mountain. I hope to be able to work more with it in the future to make my writing have better flow and emphasis on my internal thoughts.
Some really intriguing questions about nonfiction here, Lisa. I especially like the question about where do we draw the line between nonfiction and fiction, creative and journalistic, etc. About a Mountain is definitely a book that "hooks" you immediately, and D'Agata is clearly a talented writer, but it's interesting that you say that your reading experience was changed once you found out about his fact-blurring techniques.
ReplyDeleteDo you feel that this makes the book lackluster? Does it undermine your reading experience? Why is it important to TRUST the writer, and what happens to the narrative, the story, when that trust suddenly dissolves? I also read this through the first time thinking it was 100% on the level, factual, accurate, but after reading it this time around I felt myself doubting what he was saying, becoming even frustrated at parts on the page I knew to be false.
John D'Agata certainly pushed the envelope when he decided to alter facts. I think your question whether his work should remain nonfiction is definitely a pertinent one and certainly one that should be asked of all authors who decide to alter the “truth” of events when publishing a piece. Do you think it is unethical to alter them and then try and publish as nonfiction?
ReplyDeleteThe lines between fiction and non-fiction create an interesting divide. Though D'Aagata writes a mostly true story, he incorporates some "bending of truth" throughout. I thought it was interesting that he actually incorporates the truth in the footnotes towards the end. In response to Perry's question, I do not think it is unethical to alter and publish something as nonfiction, although if it crosses a certain line then that information should be made well known to the reader.I do not personally feel offended at his twisting of some facts - though the factual way he presents them could easily lead to further questioning.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned in one of my other posts, I find that it is very easy to trust the author when they present you with so many facts that seem so believable, but D’Agata definitely used that to his advantage and in the end lost the trust of many of his readers. For such factual and personal information concerning others, I thought that was a really low thing for a writer to do. The story itself was interesting, but lost me when I found out that a lot of the information was incorrect.
ReplyDeleteKnowing what John D'Agata had done with the facts before I started reading the book really hindered my reading of this book. I did find the first couple of chapters interesting but as I read further and he got into more of the data about the mountain this is where I found it difficult to continue. I think trust in the author is extremely important. While I found this book to be a great reference for lyric and journalistic styles of writing, I wish D'Agata could have found a way to do it and stay true to the truth.
ReplyDeleteOverall, this piece was interesting to read but fell short due to the somewhat questionable 'facts' and choppy structure. It's very interesting to think about where to draw the line between fiction and non-fiction because the latter is so influenced by truth and reality. This leads me to be more critical about what I read and pay more attention to the legitimacy of facts and statistics.
ReplyDeleteAt first I didn't really have a solid opinion on "About a Mountain" one way or another, but after the in-class discussion we had about it, I discovered that I am not a fan of the book. This is actually mainly because of Perry, who pointed out several factual shortcomings from the book. In a book like this, I think if you're going to have research, it has to be sharp and true, with no question about the validity. After having to go back and question some of the research, it made me question the validity of the whole story, which made me like it less. Jon D'Agata is a good writer, but even aside from the fact controversy, I wasn't thrilled about the content, and I wished there were more personal introspective moments throughout the book.
ReplyDeleteAt first I didn't really like this piece but after we talked more about it in class I came to understand it a little better. I still don't find it as one of my favorite reads but it grew on me a little. The only thing that I really didn't like about this book is the fact that that so many of the facts turned out to not be true. I think that when talking about a subject like this it is important that we get the facts correct.
ReplyDeleteThe whole "facts" vs fiction is definitely a hard issue. As a science major, one of the defining characteristics of scientific writing is the constant qualification. That is, " This study showed that x could be a possible cause of y, but we have to consider this possible source of error, the small sample size, these competing factors, and this could be another reason, etc etc". Nothing in science writing is ever definite, and there's always something going back on itself. In popular writing, the reader wants something concrete, definite that they can swallow and understand. So I can understand where that hesitancy comes from, but that's a little bit different from completely altering facts (like changing dates and numbers) for a point. But still, if a scientist were to read most popular science writing, I feel they'd all have a problem with the lack of qualification and deliberation of the points, since everything in science is like that.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting book. In my 215 class, Professor Munoz mentioned the notes section at the back, and a book in which someone checks all the dubious facts throughout the book. The controversy seems to be quite polarizing. Either people like the way D'Agata plays with facts, or they think it's a breach of integrity. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion one way or another: I don't like that he twisted facts because it seems dishonest somehow, but I also like it because it got people talking about the issue.
ReplyDelete